Film Annotation #10 Genetically Modified Food - Panacea or Poison? word count 1057
1. Panacea or Poison was directed by Josh Shore in 2005.
2. The central argument is that the benefits of genetically altered foods do not outweigh the risks and side effects.
3. The argument is made by interviews with experts in the field. The film also has people representing the opposing side to keep the argument more balanced. Scientific information is presented from scientists and a spokesperson from the FDA explains their position on the issue. The film feels a bit removed from the average person, though it does have emotional appeal when it starts relating the topic to our food which is an issue we can easily relate to and understand.
4. The economic impact of the issue is that different countries have different restrictions so when Canada’s crops became contaminated with genetically modified DNA, Europe refused to buy the crops which cut the value of the Canadian crops in half. Another issue is that profits have been outweighing safety precautions. The environmental impact is that though the number of crops that have been altered is relatively small, they are some of the most used ingredients in processed foods such as soy, corn and canola. It is also a political and cultural issue when the FDA does not require any labeling for genetically modified crops because the companies are afraid that the consumers will choose the non-engineered foods. Intellectual Property Rights give the farmers the ability to use the genetically modified seeds they buy for one year, so just as someone addicted to drugs, they have no choice but to continue buying the seeds, year after year. There are also legal issues in that it is legal to patent living organisms and labels are not required by law. It is also a cultural and behavioral problem since food companies are afraid to list their products as genetically modified in fear of people rejecting their products, but our culture doesn’t ask us to investigate to determine it for ourselves.
5. I found the thorough and comprehensive coverage of the science of the topic the most convincing part of the film. Both sides of the argument were presented and it covered the wide range of issues that occur from the one problem such as genetic drift, loss of diversity and privatization. The film used scientists, lawyers and executives to make their point which worked as an effective and encompassing group of experts that could attack the issue from all angles. They gave a lot of data of the dangers of genetically modified food and argued for the precautionary principle because, as they showed, once genetically modified crops are created, it is extremely difficult to control them and to keep them out of our food supply. Even if it was later decided that the food was unsafe, it would be near impossible to remove the traces from our food.
6. The least compelling part of the movie was simply that it was rather dry. The graphics did not appear until the very end, and experts talking on a serious subject can lose their audience’s interest rather quickly. The lawyer was also the most convincing person, for me, in the film and yet it never really described what his stake in the issue was or who he was really working for. It simply said Legal Director for the Center for Food Safety but that could still be any number of organizations with a specific stake and interest in the topic. They also talk rather quickly, requiring the viewer to rewind and listen again to fully understand what they were trying to say.
7. The film best addresses an audience who is seeking specific and scientific data on the topic. It can also be used for people who are unfamiliar with the topic of genetically modified foods in that it covers the topic well. I think it is aimed towards people who have a stake in the issue to help them be better informed and aware of what is going on and its widespread affects.
8. The film could have used a little bit of humor or something to keep the audience’s attention better. It was rather thorough and did present both sides, without the opposing argument appearing to be edited to such a degree that the audience could only agree with the stand of the movie, though convincing people of its argument was definitely the aim.
9. The film does not pose immediate intervention but strongly urges the use of the precautionary principle before it is too late. They also show the role of the consumer in that companies are avoiding labeling their products as GMs because they are afraid that consumers won’t buy the products, but if consumers do their homework and don’t buy the GMs products even though they are not labeled, then we can send a message to the companies. Awareness of the issues and the various branches that the issue takes are also very important and a point of intervention could be in simply keeping the consumer aware of the issues and the outcomes. Ideally, GM products would be labeled and the food industry would regulate the products.
10. What interested me about this topic was the companies’ fear that consumers would not buy their GM products. A study in the Oxford Journals shows that consumers are willing to pay more for GM food that has enhanced nutritional value and they are more accepting of intragenics than transgenics which would allow for the labeling of GM foods with enhanced nutritional value. Intragenics enhances product attributes by moving genes a long distance within a species.
Another interesting article studies why people buy eco-friendly labeled products. Though they determine that their sample size was too small to make broad statements, they also state that eco-labeling is not the best environmental policy tool because many consumers buy the products for private benefits. There are also a lot of outside factors that come into play before being able to properly determine the cause that consumers buy eco-friendly goods.
Genetically Modified Food - Panacea or Poison? word count 1057
1. Panacea or Poison was directed by Josh Shore in 2005.
2. The central argument is that the benefits of genetically altered foods do not outweigh the risks and side effects.
3. The argument is made by interviews with experts in the field. The film also has people representing the opposing side to keep the argument more balanced. Scientific information is presented from scientists and a spokesperson from the FDA explains their position on the issue. The film feels a bit removed from the average person, though it does have emotional appeal when it starts relating the topic to our food which is an issue we can easily relate to and understand.
4. The economic impact of the issue is that different countries have different restrictions so when Canada’s crops became contaminated with genetically modified DNA, Europe refused to buy the crops which cut the value of the Canadian crops in half. Another issue is that profits have been outweighing safety precautions. The environmental impact is that though the number of crops that have been altered is relatively small, they are some of the most used ingredients in processed foods such as soy, corn and canola. It is also a political and cultural issue when the FDA does not require any labeling for genetically modified crops because the companies are afraid that the consumers will choose the non-engineered foods. Intellectual Property Rights give the farmers the ability to use the genetically modified seeds they buy for one year, so just as someone addicted to drugs, they have no choice but to continue buying the seeds, year after year. There are also legal issues in that it is legal to patent living organisms and labels are not required by law. It is also a cultural and behavioral problem since food companies are afraid to list their products as genetically modified in fear of people rejecting their products, but our culture doesn’t ask us to investigate to determine it for ourselves.
5. I found the thorough and comprehensive coverage of the science of the topic the most convincing part of the film. Both sides of the argument were presented and it covered the wide range of issues that occur from the one problem such as genetic drift, loss of diversity and privatization. The film used scientists, lawyers and executives to make their point which worked as an effective and encompassing group of experts that could attack the issue from all angles. They gave a lot of data of the dangers of genetically modified food and argued for the precautionary principle because, as they showed, once genetically modified crops are created, it is extremely difficult to control them and to keep them out of our food supply. Even if it was later decided that the food was unsafe, it would be near impossible to remove the traces from our food.
6. The least compelling part of the movie was simply that it was rather dry. The graphics did not appear until the very end, and experts talking on a serious subject can lose their audience’s interest rather quickly. The lawyer was also the most convincing person, for me, in the film and yet it never really described what his stake in the issue was or who he was really working for. It simply said Legal Director for the Center for Food Safety but that could still be any number of organizations with a specific stake and interest in the topic. They also talk rather quickly, requiring the viewer to rewind and listen again to fully understand what they were trying to say.
7. The film best addresses an audience who is seeking specific and scientific data on the topic. It can also be used for people who are unfamiliar with the topic of genetically modified foods in that it covers the topic well. I think it is aimed towards people who have a stake in the issue to help them be better informed and aware of what is going on and its widespread affects.
8. The film could have used a little bit of humor or something to keep the audience’s attention better. It was rather thorough and did present both sides, without the opposing argument appearing to be edited to such a degree that the audience could only agree with the stand of the movie, though convincing people of its argument was definitely the aim.
9. The film does not pose immediate intervention but strongly urges the use of the precautionary principle before it is too late. They also show the role of the consumer in that companies are avoiding labeling their products as GMs because they are afraid that consumers won’t buy the products, but if consumers do their homework and don’t buy the GMs products even though they are not labeled, then we can send a message to the companies. Awareness of the issues and the various branches that the issue takes are also very important and a point of intervention could be in simply keeping the consumer aware of the issues and the outcomes. Ideally, GM products would be labeled and the food industry would regulate the products.
10. What interested me about this topic was the companies’ fear that consumers would not buy their GM products. A study in the Oxford Journals shows that consumers are willing to pay more for GM food that has enhanced nutritional value and they are more accepting of intragenics than transgenics which would allow for the labeling of GM foods with enhanced nutritional value. Intragenics enhances product attributes by moving genes a long distance within a species.
Colson, Gregory and Wallace E. Huffman. “Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Foods with Product-Enhancing Nutritional Attributes.” Mar 2011. http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/20/ajae.aaq103.full
Another interesting article studies why people buy eco-friendly labeled products. Though they determine that their sample size was too small to make broad statements, they also state that eco-labeling is not the best environmental policy tool because many consumers buy the products for private benefits. There are also a lot of outside factors that come into play before being able to properly determine the cause that consumers buy eco-friendly goods.
Bougherara, Douadia, and Pierre Combris. “Eco-labeled food products: what are consumers paying for?” Aug 2009. http://erae.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/3/321.full